This award is, of course, simply in terms of this blog. Somewhere over the rainbow there might be an 'official' award of this title.
Well, I have thought a bit about this. There are certainly some interesting, some outstanding, and some flawed Anglicans; and even one or two who are interesting, outstanding and flawed. And there are exceptional individuals out of the public gaze who represent the ideals of Anglicanism, which, in the end, is about being gracious Christians!
But reflecting on 2008 I am struck by the strength and resolve of various groupings of Anglicans. Those Virginian Anglicans, for instance, who have maintained their right in law to continue to use their church properties - a right recognised by the Virginian judiciary but not by The Episcopal Church. Or, those Anglicans who came together for GAFCON in Jerusalem, and forged a path of unity in truth. Behind the scenes before and during Lambeth a collection of different groupings of Anglicans enabled this complex and potentially disastrous event to take place, and to more or less fulfil its planned agenda. Then there is another grouping of Anglicans with impressive if somewhat anonymous credentials: those who have been under severe pressure for their faith, including Anglicans in Iraq, but perhaps under the severest pressure have been Anglicans in Jos, Nigeria.
So, in 2008, a difficult year in the life of the Anglican communion, no one individual stands out as 'Anglican of 2008', but a variety of Anglicans working together in common cause for Christ and for the gospel constitute an impressive and inspiring example for other Anglicans to follow. To God be the glory!!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Where there is a will, there is a way
News from England of an historic deal which paves the way for women bishops in the C of E seems to overlook the 'Down Under' source of the paving! The idea that the church might not divide over women bishops because those who wish access to a male bishop will be able to do so originated in the recent Australian Anglican bishops' decision to accept women bishops providing each diocese with a female bishop also had a male bishop. Not to worry: we in the colonies are nothing if not humble!!
The relevance of this news to ACANZP is that we are reminded that on a good day, Anglicans can muster the will to find the way to honour diverse theological integrities. Much as I personally am unconvinced by arguments against women becoming presbyters and bishops, there is theological integrity to some such arguments.* The deals in Australia and in England (though still subject to the agreement of its General Synod) is recognition of that integrity. Whether differences within our church over the ordination of women are of such magnitude that we should seek a similar deal to the C of E is a matter for reflection - our history on the matter is different to Australia and England. But the issue in our church on which, at some point, we will need to muster the will to find a way forward, concerns homosexuality: currently we are in a limbo land. The potential in 2009 is for schismatic cracks elsewhere in the Communion to confront our church with a 'choose this day' scenario re international allegiances which concomitantly wrenches us out of limbo on homosexuality.
*By 'integrity' I mean arguments that incorporate Scripture, reason, and tradition coherently and are properly grounded in Anglican theological presuppositions, whether of an anglo-catholic or evangelical kind; by 'some' I do mean to imply that while some arguments have theological integrity, there are other arguments against women becoming presbyters and bishops which lack integrity, e.g. those which are a thin cover for the preservation of male power, and those which begin with a dodgy understanding of subordination within the Godhead ... the latter running the particularly grave risk of renewing the power of Arianism in the church.
The relevance of this news to ACANZP is that we are reminded that on a good day, Anglicans can muster the will to find the way to honour diverse theological integrities. Much as I personally am unconvinced by arguments against women becoming presbyters and bishops, there is theological integrity to some such arguments.* The deals in Australia and in England (though still subject to the agreement of its General Synod) is recognition of that integrity. Whether differences within our church over the ordination of women are of such magnitude that we should seek a similar deal to the C of E is a matter for reflection - our history on the matter is different to Australia and England. But the issue in our church on which, at some point, we will need to muster the will to find a way forward, concerns homosexuality: currently we are in a limbo land. The potential in 2009 is for schismatic cracks elsewhere in the Communion to confront our church with a 'choose this day' scenario re international allegiances which concomitantly wrenches us out of limbo on homosexuality.
*By 'integrity' I mean arguments that incorporate Scripture, reason, and tradition coherently and are properly grounded in Anglican theological presuppositions, whether of an anglo-catholic or evangelical kind; by 'some' I do mean to imply that while some arguments have theological integrity, there are other arguments against women becoming presbyters and bishops which lack integrity, e.g. those which are a thin cover for the preservation of male power, and those which begin with a dodgy understanding of subordination within the Godhead ... the latter running the particularly grave risk of renewing the power of Arianism in the church.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Announcing the Formation of the Anglican Bridge Communion
Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times, but writing in the Guardian (hat-tip to Thinking Anglicans), has a brilliantly written analysis of the recent history of the Anglican Communion, channelled into a scary prophecy that 2009 is the year of the great bust up (or 'schism' in ecclesially correct language).
But he seems to envisage just two Anglican Communions by the end of 2009, more or less a 'liberal' one and a 'conservative' one, except the Archbishop of Canterbury will be leading the former and Nigeria will be dominant in the leadership of the latter. On the face of it people like me are going to be very unhappy, should Paul turn out to be Jeremiah, that is people who would like to be in a conservative Communion but with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the helm (naming just a couple of matters from the reality of quite a few other issues about forging the character of the ideal Anglican Communion in the face of intense internal conflict). One of those issues, incidentally, is the distinct possibility that neither Communion would be talking to the other in 2010.
So, I am getting in on the act quickly, before the Year of the Great Bust Up even begins:
I announce the formation of the Anglican Bridge Communion (ABC), with the Archbishop of Canterbury as patron, primate inter pares, and pastor-in-chief - a Communion geared for Anglicans unhappy about a binary schism, who want to be sure their Communion will be in respectful conversation with all other Anglican Communions, yet do not accept the dominant theological tendencies of TEC and ACCan should hold sway in any global Anglican Communion. The ABC's formal motto will be 'Ut Unum Sint'; it's informal motto will be, 'Schism and heresy are both bad boys'. The ABC will only begin formally if the Great Bust Up takes place, and it will only exist for as long as necessary.
Happy New Year!
But he seems to envisage just two Anglican Communions by the end of 2009, more or less a 'liberal' one and a 'conservative' one, except the Archbishop of Canterbury will be leading the former and Nigeria will be dominant in the leadership of the latter. On the face of it people like me are going to be very unhappy, should Paul turn out to be Jeremiah, that is people who would like to be in a conservative Communion but with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the helm (naming just a couple of matters from the reality of quite a few other issues about forging the character of the ideal Anglican Communion in the face of intense internal conflict). One of those issues, incidentally, is the distinct possibility that neither Communion would be talking to the other in 2010.
So, I am getting in on the act quickly, before the Year of the Great Bust Up even begins:
I announce the formation of the Anglican Bridge Communion (ABC), with the Archbishop of Canterbury as patron, primate inter pares, and pastor-in-chief - a Communion geared for Anglicans unhappy about a binary schism, who want to be sure their Communion will be in respectful conversation with all other Anglican Communions, yet do not accept the dominant theological tendencies of TEC and ACCan should hold sway in any global Anglican Communion. The ABC's formal motto will be 'Ut Unum Sint'; it's informal motto will be, 'Schism and heresy are both bad boys'. The ABC will only begin formally if the Great Bust Up takes place, and it will only exist for as long as necessary.
Happy New Year!
Final Thoughts towards Anglican of the Year 2008
Various bishops have sprung to mind, with the Bishop of Rochester impressing lately. (They say first impressions count, but an exception is 'of the Year' competitions when late impressions make a considerable impact). An exceptional priest in Oregon was proposed by one commenter. I also noted a lay woman in the Diocese of Tennessee who wrote a wonderful letter explaining why after some 70 years in TEC she is leaving. I thought the Queen, possibly in her last years as Supreme Governor (noting gathering debate in the C of E/English press and parliament re disestablishment), made an excellent 'Christ commending' Christmas Message. Any final suggestions from readers?
Monday, December 29, 2008
The argument that dare not speak its name
It used to be that homosexuality was 'the love that dared not speak its name' but those days seem far distant when we see the kind of excoriation heaped on Barack Obama and Rick Warren because the former invited the latter to lead the inauguration prayer scheduled for late January 2009. The latter being publicly associated with California's Proposition 8 campaign and therefore, by today's standard's of vilification is 'anti-gay'. Almost simultaneously on the other side of the Atlantic, Pope Benedict XVI, speaking up for marriage and against 'gender theory', has also been excoriated for anti-gayness. (No official text of his address to the Curia has been released as far as I know). Giles Fraser, a very smart vicar and writer of no mean ability, tackles Pope Benedict here.
I find this line of Gilesian thinking makes me think again about the Bible and homosexuality:
"This is the great obsession of much of the early history of the people of Israel. From this perspective, fertile women are politically valuable, and infertile women, homosexuals and eunuchs considered almost traitorous. Thus, for instance, the rather bizarre stuff you get in Deuteronomy that "no one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord".
But there's a twist here. For when it comes to the book of Isaiah, Jesus's favourite book of the Hebrew scriptures, this more enlightened biblical author realises that the obsession with children has warped the moral values of his culture. In direct opposition to the theology of Deuteronomy, Isaiah writes that "to the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths and hold fast to my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name that is better than sons and daughters". Note: better than sons and daughters. And what is true for eunuchs is true, by direct analogy, for people who are gay. Inclusion is not a piece of trendy modern theory. It is a biblical imperative.
Those who take the Bible as if it were a reference book cannot mentally accommodate the idea that the story being told is about the developing consciousness of the people of Israel, of how they got it wrong and how they are led to a new understanding by God. For Christians especially this new understanding is that God is there for all; that, as St Paul is very keen to insist, you don't even need to be a Jew for God to be there for you. Which returns us to the message of the angel: that Christ is good news to all. This is the ultimate communication of religious inclusion."
I note, however, that Paul on human sexuality (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 5-7) does not seem to be unduly driven by negativity about infertile sexual behaviour.
Giles Fraser goes on to make this very interesting observation about evangelicals and gender theory:
"The broader theme of the pope's address concerns gender theory. His idea is that trendy philosophy has obscured the distinctiveness of male and female, which ought to be regarded as rooted in the order of creation. As it happens, evangelical Christians are often incredibly suspicious of this sort of line. They are afraid that it endorses the argument that, because homosexuality is actually prevalent in nature, and because people seem to be "born gay", natural law ethics could be won round to regard homosexuality as natural and thus good.
In light of this, conservative evangelicals have begun to take an interest in precisely the sort of gender theory that the pope excoriates. It seems bizarre to me that evangelicals have started to read postmodern philosophers such as Michel Foucault with approval, but what they argue is that because our sexual inclinations are not stubbornly rooted in nature, they are more plastic and thus they are capable of being changed. In this way they can argue that gay people are not gay because of intransigent nature but because of wilful disobedience. Foucault would turn in his grave."
I think Giles Fraser makes a fair point here, and misses a fair point too! Its a fair point that homosexuality is embedded in nature in (at least) the sense that some men and some women cannot find in reflection on their past or present any sense of meaningful desire for the opposite sex. For such people homosexuality is experienced as their 'natural' condition and is neither a 'chosen' condition nor a humanly 'imposed' condition (e.g. through sexual abuse). For evangelicals, and the Pope this means (at least) the need for great care in the use of language concerning 'nature/natural', and 'order of creation' ... greater care, arguably, than the Pope took, but we must await official publication of his talk before making definitive judgement. But I think Fraser misses a fair point - a point I presume Pope Benedict was making - namely that there is talk around gender ('gender theory') which is neutral about preference where preference is possible. A bisexual woman (for example) is under no particular compulsion to constrain desire towards a man: yet the 'order of creation' within the Bible is not neutral about the constraint of desire. Christians working from a base in the Bible are reasonable in saying of a bisexual person, 'you appear to have a choice; this is the direction you should choose.' Fraser rightly draws attention to evangelicals foolishly questing to make the case that some people have choices about their sexual preference when they do not. But I wonder whether Fraser would counsel someone who did have a choice to fall in line with 'the order of creation' in the Bible?
I find this line of Gilesian thinking makes me think again about the Bible and homosexuality:
"This is the great obsession of much of the early history of the people of Israel. From this perspective, fertile women are politically valuable, and infertile women, homosexuals and eunuchs considered almost traitorous. Thus, for instance, the rather bizarre stuff you get in Deuteronomy that "no one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord".
But there's a twist here. For when it comes to the book of Isaiah, Jesus's favourite book of the Hebrew scriptures, this more enlightened biblical author realises that the obsession with children has warped the moral values of his culture. In direct opposition to the theology of Deuteronomy, Isaiah writes that "to the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths and hold fast to my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name that is better than sons and daughters". Note: better than sons and daughters. And what is true for eunuchs is true, by direct analogy, for people who are gay. Inclusion is not a piece of trendy modern theory. It is a biblical imperative.
Those who take the Bible as if it were a reference book cannot mentally accommodate the idea that the story being told is about the developing consciousness of the people of Israel, of how they got it wrong and how they are led to a new understanding by God. For Christians especially this new understanding is that God is there for all; that, as St Paul is very keen to insist, you don't even need to be a Jew for God to be there for you. Which returns us to the message of the angel: that Christ is good news to all. This is the ultimate communication of religious inclusion."
I note, however, that Paul on human sexuality (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 5-7) does not seem to be unduly driven by negativity about infertile sexual behaviour.
Giles Fraser goes on to make this very interesting observation about evangelicals and gender theory:
"The broader theme of the pope's address concerns gender theory. His idea is that trendy philosophy has obscured the distinctiveness of male and female, which ought to be regarded as rooted in the order of creation. As it happens, evangelical Christians are often incredibly suspicious of this sort of line. They are afraid that it endorses the argument that, because homosexuality is actually prevalent in nature, and because people seem to be "born gay", natural law ethics could be won round to regard homosexuality as natural and thus good.
In light of this, conservative evangelicals have begun to take an interest in precisely the sort of gender theory that the pope excoriates. It seems bizarre to me that evangelicals have started to read postmodern philosophers such as Michel Foucault with approval, but what they argue is that because our sexual inclinations are not stubbornly rooted in nature, they are more plastic and thus they are capable of being changed. In this way they can argue that gay people are not gay because of intransigent nature but because of wilful disobedience. Foucault would turn in his grave."
I think Giles Fraser makes a fair point here, and misses a fair point too! Its a fair point that homosexuality is embedded in nature in (at least) the sense that some men and some women cannot find in reflection on their past or present any sense of meaningful desire for the opposite sex. For such people homosexuality is experienced as their 'natural' condition and is neither a 'chosen' condition nor a humanly 'imposed' condition (e.g. through sexual abuse). For evangelicals, and the Pope this means (at least) the need for great care in the use of language concerning 'nature/natural', and 'order of creation' ... greater care, arguably, than the Pope took, but we must await official publication of his talk before making definitive judgement. But I think Fraser misses a fair point - a point I presume Pope Benedict was making - namely that there is talk around gender ('gender theory') which is neutral about preference where preference is possible. A bisexual woman (for example) is under no particular compulsion to constrain desire towards a man: yet the 'order of creation' within the Bible is not neutral about the constraint of desire. Christians working from a base in the Bible are reasonable in saying of a bisexual person, 'you appear to have a choice; this is the direction you should choose.' Fraser rightly draws attention to evangelicals foolishly questing to make the case that some people have choices about their sexual preference when they do not. But I wonder whether Fraser would counsel someone who did have a choice to fall in line with 'the order of creation' in the Bible?
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Advantage, Christianity
One of the best things about a blog powered by (due acknowledgement coming up) Google's software is the "My Bloglist" on the right-hand side of the blog. At a glance I can see if any of my favourite blogistas have made a new posting. This morning, waking up Down Under to a perfect summer's day, two brilliant columns appear from the far side of the world. In one John Richardson, joining an ongoing, bubbling debate about the disestablishment of the Church of England, shares the luminous wisdom of T. S. Eliot. In the other, noted by Bishop Alan's Blog, and long enough for just a taster to be given here, Matthew Parris, Times columnist and confirmed atheist, gives as near perfect an apologia for 'the difference Jesus makes' as any Christian could! In tennis parlance (the Australian Open is not far away), 'Advantage, Christianity'!
John Richardson, The Ugley Vicar:
Why now would be a very bad time for disestablishment
The disestablishment of the Church of England makes very good theological sense. At the same time, I firmly believe that now would be a very bad time for it, since those who advocate it the loudest do so, I suspect, not for the effect it would have on the Church of England but for the effect it would have on our society. And what they intend, I'm sure, would would be very bad:
"It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe have —until recently — been rooted. It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true, and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all spring out of his heritage of Christian culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. Only a Christian culture could have produced a Voltaire or a Nietzsche [both unbelievers]. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian Faith. ... If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it."
(T S Eliot, ‘Notes Towards the Definition of Culture’, 1948, in Christianity and Culture, p200)
Matthew Parris, As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
... Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing. ...
Parris ends his column in this striking set of paragraphs:
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.
And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.
John Richardson, The Ugley Vicar:
Why now would be a very bad time for disestablishment
The disestablishment of the Church of England makes very good theological sense. At the same time, I firmly believe that now would be a very bad time for it, since those who advocate it the loudest do so, I suspect, not for the effect it would have on the Church of England but for the effect it would have on our society. And what they intend, I'm sure, would would be very bad:
"It is in Christianity that our arts have developed; it is in Christianity that the laws of Europe have —until recently — been rooted. It is against a background of Christianity that all our thought has significance. An individual European may not believe that the Christian Faith is true, and yet what he says, and makes, and does, will all spring out of his heritage of Christian culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. Only a Christian culture could have produced a Voltaire or a Nietzsche [both unbelievers]. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian Faith. ... If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great-great-grandchildren: and if we did, not one of us would be happy in it."
(T S Eliot, ‘Notes Towards the Definition of Culture’, 1948, in Christianity and Culture, p200)
Matthew Parris, As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
... Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing. ...
Parris ends his column in this striking set of paragraphs:
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.
And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Thought for Boxing Day
The medieval theologian William of Saint Thierry once said that God – from the time of Adam – saw that his grandeur provoked resistance in man, that we felt limited in our own being and threatened in our freedom. Therefore God chose a new way. He became a child. He made himself dependent and weak, in need of our love. Now – this God who has become a child says to us – you can no longer fear me, you can only love me.
From The Homily of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at the 2008 Christmas Midnight Mass (Hat-tip to Titus One Nine)
From The Homily of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at the 2008 Christmas Midnight Mass (Hat-tip to Titus One Nine)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)